Copyright 1999 The Detroit News, Inc.
The Detroit
News
July 4, 1999, Sunday
SECTION: Metro; Pg. Pg. B1
LENGTH: 561 words
HEADLINE:
Viagra tilts the scales in favor of coverage for birth-control 9900255469:
BYLINE: Laura Berman / The Detroit News
BODY:
Call it the Viagra Effect.
Despite Bob Dole's televised lessons on E.D. and courage, this
particular effect has more to do with political dysfunction than the erectile
sort.
This month, Lynne Martinez, a state rep from Lansing, plans to
introduce a bill requiring Michigan health insurers to cover the costs of
contraception as part of prescription drug plans. Her reasoning: Such a
requirement is only fair.
"Let's put it this way," says Martinez, a
Democrat. "Forty percent of health insurance plans cover the costs of Viagra.
Only 15 percent cover contraception."
The battle of the pills is under
way, the latest conflict in that amusing and endless war between Mars and Venus.
This time, though, both sides are winning.
For while decades of lobbying
by groups such as Planned Parenthood failed to get insurance companies to cover
contraception, Viagra received immediate, if not universal, acceptance from
carriers. And legislators, who are mostly male, are proving reluctant to fight a
parallel plea for contraceptive coverage.
Hair-split if
you will. Argue that comparing Viagra and birth control pills is an imperfect
analogy, like comparing apples and oranges, or bananas and casaba melons. You
can make the point, as some religious leaders have, that impotence interferes
with normal function while pregnancy is a normal function.
Or you could
make the point that the costs of pregnancy and/or abortion are higher than the
cost of contraception -- and failing to reimburse is a way to attempt to control
women's sexuality.
But legislators, who are almost 80 percent male
nationally, are conceding that these two pharmacologic boons to sexual
well-being share certain parallels.
Within the past 12 months, the New
York Times reports, more than 30 state legislatures have introduced bills
mandating coverage for birth control. Eight states already have made them law.
The Viagra Effect is being credited, and the argument is simple: If men
can have their sex lives' enhanced, why the heck do women pay out of pocket to
deal with theirs? In Michigan, Martinez countered a pro-life initiative barring
insurance coverage for abortion services in one bill by adding a clause that
would have prohibited reimbursement for Viagra. One male legislator, says Rep.
Patricia Godchaux of Birmingham, became incensed at the idea. "We were trying to
make a point. We weren't serious," Godchaux says. "But he got very, very upset."
Viagra is bringing newfound life to a moribund argument. "The problem of
unequal coverage for women's health is nothing new," sighs ex-Rep. Maxine
Berman, executive director of the Women's Health Network of Michigan. But it is
being reinvigorated.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan is poised for
this debate, having cleverly removed both Viagra and contraception from its
standard prescription drug plan. Instead, companies that use the Blues plans can
opt to include either or both at additional cost per employee. How many do
either?
The Blues won't say. "That information would have to come from
our subscribers,' says Blues spokeswoman Helen Stojic.
Does your health
insurance plan pay for Viagra or contraception -- or neither? I'd like to hear.
Laura Berman's column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday in the Metro
section. To reach her call (248) 647-7221 or e-mail lberman@detnews.com.
LOAD-DATE: July 04, 1999 
